Panasonic TH-50PH9UK 50" HD Plasma Review

[Audioholics]

<A href="http://www.audioholics.com/productreviews/avhardware/panasonic-TH-50PH9UKp1.php"><IMG style="WIDTH: 119px; HEIGHT: 100px" alt=[panasonicTH50PHD9UK] hspace=10 src="http://www.audioholics.com/news/thumbs/panasonicTH50PHD9UK_th.jpg" align=left border=0></A>Wait a second, didn’t I just review this panel? Well, yes and no. This is the new version (notice the "9" in the model number) of the TH-50PHD8UK I recently reviewed. My first question was, "So, what’s different?" Well, the first thing I noticed from the specs was that the newer display has a stated 10,000:1 contrast ratio rather than a 3,000:1. The newer model is also missing the REAL Mach system. I spoke to Matt Tucker over at Visual Apex and he informed me that this new unit uses much thinner glass (by about an inch) which reduces the weight. The unit uses 16-bit digital signal processing and improved "sub-field driving technology" to reproduce 3,072 steps of gradation. Read on for more...

[Read the Review]

 

[lubmar]

How would the picture from this plasma (or similar) compere to a picture from a front projector like: PT-AE900 ,HD72 or IN76 for example ?

 

[Herr D]

I noticed that you reviewed plenty of movies with black bars to check for burn in, but is that an adequate way of testing the TV? As far as I know the black bars are a result of pixels not being lit so it defies the whole burn-in issue...

 

[Tom Andry]

When checking for burn in I mostly view news, weather, or sports channels (anything with a static image). In the 8UK review I outlined this in more detail. This Panny seemed at least as resistant to burn in as the last I reviewed.

 

[radaray58]

ratings and test results incongruent

I have recently read both of Clints reviews of the Panasonic plasmas, as I have been planning (hoping) to buy one. Costco now carries this 9UK model for $2999 or so online. Thanks for the additional info about this model.

I'm not sure if my comment deserves its own thread or not, but it seems like his overall positive review does not jive with the test results. I mean, 38 out of a possible 130???? In any other world, this would be a miserable failing grade. But I know that this is not the case based on the subjective reviews of not only Clint, but many others as well. This is probably the top rated plasma on the market, even better than more expensive Pioneers.

It seems like maybe the test results are meaningless (or at least some of them) in a real world environment. Why not just ditch them if that is the case? Has there ever been a display that actually passes most or all of those tests? If not, then they are irrelevent, don't you think?

I'd be interested to hear any thoughts on this. I think that you might want to come up with a more relevent set of tests that will measure how "good" the display is in the home theater environment.

 

[Herr D]

I've been to several stores to compare panasonic plasma's with pioneer plasma's and I know some people who have purchased either of the two and I have got to say that panasonic plasma's suck: ther build quality is poor, the image is poor (even with the latest versions who should be superior to pioneers in theory), the overall feel is crappy.

The pioneers cost a little more, but are just better on every front. I've read a lot of good stuff in online reviews about panasonic plasma's so it makes me wonder if the people that actually do the review know what they're talking about. Panasonic stinks.